Academic Misconduct

Part 8 Academic Misconduct

These Regulations should be read in conjunction with the University’s Academic Integrity Policy which is available at: http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/policies/policies/academic/. The University is committed to ensuring that everyone is made aware of their responsibilities in maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and of the steps taken to protect those standards.

All references to: the Head of Governance and Legal Services’; the ‘Dean of the Graduate School’; the ‘Academic Misconduct Officer’; ‘or the ‘School Responsible Officer’ in these procedures should be taken respectively to mean ‘Head of Governance and Legal Services or designate’; ‘Dean of the Graduate School or designate’; ‘Academic Misconduct Officer or designate’ or ‘School Responsible Officer or designate’.

1. Context

1.1 The University of East London is committed to academic integrity and will take firm action against any student who breaches these regulations. All students are responsible for ensuring that every element of their studies is their own work and for following regulations for the proper conduct of assessments. No credit will be awarded for work which is found to have breached these Academic Misconduct Regulations.

2 Definition

2.1 For the purposes of these Regulations, academic misconduct is defined as any type of cheating in an assessment for the purposes of achieving personal gain. Examples of such misconduct are given below: the list is not exhaustive and the use of any form of unfair or dishonest practice in assessment can be considered potential misconduct. A student cannot initiate an academic misconduct action against another student; this can only be done by an academic member of staff.

Coursework Submitted for Assessment

For coursework submissions, academic misconduct means:

(a) The presentation of another person’s work as one’s own with or without obtaining permission to use it.

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 1 (b) The inclusion within one’s own work of material (written, visual or oral), originally produced by another person, without suitable acknowledgment.

(c) The submission, as if it were one’s own work, of anything which has been offered to you for your use, but which is actually not your own work.

(d) The inclusion within one’s work of concepts paraphrased from elsewhere without citing your source.

(e) The inclusion in submitted work of sections of text, whether from electronic or hard copy sources, without appropriate acknowledgement of the source.

(f) The submission of work that the student, as the author, has previously submitted, without suitable acknowledgement of the source of their previous work; this should not normally be more than a short quotation as the same work cannot be submitted for different assignments.

(g) Including or quoting the work of other students in one’s work, with the exception of published work, or outputs held in the library as a learning resource, which should be cited and acknowledged appropriately.

(h) Being party to any arrangement whereby the work of one candidate is represented as that of another.

(i) The submission, as your own work, of any work that has been purchased, or otherwise obtained from others, whether this is from other students, online services, “cheat sites”, or other agents or sources that sell or provide assignments.

(j) Practices such as ‘cutting and pasting’ segments of text into your work, without citing the source of each.

(k) For work not intended to be submitted as a collaborative assignment: producing work with one or more other students, using study practices that mean the submitted work is nearly identical, overall or in part, to that of other students.

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 2 (l) Offering an inducement to staff and/or other persons connected with assessment.

Examinations

For examinations, academic misconduct means:

(a) Importation into an examination room of materials or devices other than those which are specifically permitted under the regulations applying to the examination in question.

(b) Reference to such materials (whether written or electronically recorded) during the period of the examination, whether or not such reference is made within the examination room.

(c) Refusing, when asked, to surrender any materials requested by an invigilator.

(d) The application of an electronic device, unless this has been expressly permitted for that examination.

(e) Copying the work of another candidate.

(f) Disruptive behaviour during examination or assessment.

(g) Obtaining or seeking to obtain access to unseen examination questions prior to the examination.

(h) Failure to observe the instructions of a person invigilating an examination, or seeking to intimidate such a person.

(i) Offering an inducement to invigilators and/or staff and/or other persons connected with assessment.

2.2 Where academic misconduct is suspected, the Subject Area Progression Board will not come to a decision on the candidate's result until the facts have been established.

3 Roles and Responsibilities

3.1 Each Dean of School will appoint a Responsible Officer, to deal with cases of academic misconduct within the School on his/her behalf. The Responsible Officer is a member of the University’s academic staff who works closely with Module Leaders, the Academic Misconduct Officer and the relevant administrator to manage incidents of reported academic misconduct within his/her School. This includes meeting with individual students to discuss cases and to outline the support available to prevent future incidents of academic misconduct. The role of Responsible Officer may be shared between two people and, in such University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 3 cases, a minimum of one of the appointees must be a member of academic staff.

4 Procedures to be followed in the event of a suspected case o f academic misconduct in undergraduate programmes, taug ht postgraduate programmes, taught elements of postgraduate research programmes and undergraduate and postgraduate credit bearing short courses.

4.1 If an assessor or invigilator suspects that academic misconduct has occurred, he or she should inform the relevant Module Leader, Responsible Officer, and the relevant administrator, by email, within 5 working days after detection.

4.2 The Module Leader, in consultation with the Responsible Officer, will determine whether or not it appears that academic misconduct has occurred, by reviewing the reported circumstances and any relevant materials, including suspected source materials within a period of twenty working days.

4.3 Where the suspected academic misconduct relates to taught elements of postgraduate research programmes, the Module Leader and Responsible Officer will ensure appropriate liaison with the Graduate School occurs.

4.4 Academic Misconduct Regulations do not apply where the suspected breach has occurred in students’ work which has been:

 submitted more than 24 hours after, but within 1 week of, the stipulated submission deadline

 where no extenuation claim is made, or if made, not granted.

4.5 If, at the end of the twenty working day period stipulated in 4.2 above, the Module Leader and Responsible Officer have not found evidence that misconduct may have occurred, the relevant administrator will be advised and no further action will be taken.

4.6 If, at the end of the twenty working day period stipulated in 4.2 above, the Module Leader and Responsible Officer have evidence that misconduct may have occurred and:

(a) there is a record that the student has previously been issued with a Level A penalty

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 4 or

(b) the suspected academic misconduct is such that it might (according to the tariff at section 10 below) incur a Level B, C or D penalty (regardless of whether it is a first instance of academic misconduct)

the matter will be referred to the Academic Misconduct Officer within 5 working days (see section 6 below).

4.7 If there is no record of the student having breached our Academic Misconduct Regulations, the Module Leader, together with the School’s Responsible Officer, will hold a School Meeting with the student. The student may be accompanied by a relative, friend, colleague or preferably, a Students’ Union Case Worker. The accompanying person cannot be a professional legal representative who has been employed to act on the student’s behalf nor can they act in the capacity of a legal advisor. At that meeting, the student will be reminded of our Academic Misconduct Regulations (including the tariff of penalties), shown how s/he has breached the regulations and advised on how to adhere to them in future. The Module Leader will present the evidence which must include appropriate source material and ask the student whether s/he accepts that s/he has breached these regulations. The student will then be invited to make any further comments.

4.7.1 Where acceptance occurs in relation to an undergraduate or taught postgraduate programme, a Level A penalty will be issued by the Module Leader and the piece of work concerned will be awarded a mark of 0. 4.7.2 Where acceptance occurs in relation to taught elements of postgraduate research programmes, the student will be required to:

 amend the documentation submitted for annual review, addressing the affected material before the annual review may be re-considered and/or

 amend the progress report documentation addressing the affected material, before the request for transfer between MPhil and PhD status, in either direction, may be re- considered.

Required amendments must be resubmitted within 40 working days from the date of the School Meeting.

4.8 Students are required to confirm their acceptance that s/he has breached these regulations by signing the School Meeting pro forma, that s/he understands how s/he has breached these regulations, undertakes to take all necessary steps to ensure that s/he does not do University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 5 so again and understands that any further instance of academic misconduct is likely to lead to a serious penalty. The Module Leader or Responsible Officer will inform the relevant administrator, who will notify the Academic Misconduct Officer. The relevant administrator will be responsible for notifying the student formally of the outcome and retaining the record of the School Meeting.

4.9 Where the student denies academic misconduct the Module Leader and Responsible Officer will refer the matter to the Academic Misconduct Officer and inform the relevant administrator.

4.10 If academic misconduct has been alleged because an assessor suspects that the work submitted is not entirely the student’s own work, and it is deemed appropriate (e.g. in cases where it has not been possible to identify the sources from which the work (or parts of it) has (or have) been taken), then a viva voce interview may be incorporated within the School Meeting. The viva voce must be in held in accordance with UEL’s Guidance for Conducting viva voce in relation to academic misconduct.

4.10.1 A report of the meeting at which the viva voce is held will be produced and made available to the Responsible Officer and the Academic Misconduct Officer.

4.11 At the discretion of the Responsible Officer and usually only to accommodate distance learning students, the School meeting may take place via a video or telephone conference.

4.12 If the student does not appear at the date and time scheduled for the School Meeting, or refuses to take part in a viva voce interview, the Responsible Officer will consider whether any reasons offered are valid, and if s/he so judges, adjourn proceedings to a later date.

4.13 If no reasons are advanced, the reasons are judged invalid or the student refuses to take part in the viva voce interview, the meeting will conclude that the student has admitted academic misconduct and will issue a Level A penalty or where appropriate, a referral to the Academic Misconduct Officer will be made. In these circumstances, there is no right to appeal the decision of the School Meeting.

4.14 Where a Level A penalty has been issued in the student’s absence, the relevant administrator will send the student a copy of the record of the School Meeting decision

4.15 Where the outcome of the viva voce interview is such that the suspected academic misconduct might (according to the tariff at section 10 below) incur a penalty (regardless of whether it is a first instance of academic misconduct) the matter will be referred to the University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 6 Academic Misconduct Officer (see section 6 below) within 5 working days.

5 Procedure to be followed in the event of a suspected research misconduct at all levels of study

5.1 If a member of staff suspects research misconduct, the ‘Policy and Procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct against students’ will apply.

6 Referrals to the Academic Misconduct Officer (alleged subse quent instances of academic misconduct and alleged first in stances of serious academic misconduct)

6.1 The Academic Misconduct Officer will write to the student setting out the allegation and the proposed penalty and inviting the student to a meeting, within 20 working days. The student may be accompanied by a relative, friend, colleague or preferably, a Students’ Union Case Worker. The accompanying person cannot be a professional legal representative who has been employed to act on the student’s behalf nor can they act in the capacity of a legal advisor.

6.2 The student is required to respond, within a period of 20 working days, to the written notification from the Academic Misconduct Officer. If s/he does not, s/he will be deemed to have accepted the proposed penalty (and notified of this in writing).

6. 3 Where the student attends the meeting and admits to an instance (or instances) of academic misconduct, s/he will be reminded of the proposed penalty and required to confirm, in writing, that s/he understands how s/he has breached these regulations, undertakes to take all necessary steps to ensure that s/he does not do so again and understands that any further instance of academic misconduct will result in a significantly more severe penalty.

6.4 Where a student attends the meeting and either:

(a) does not admit academic misconduct because s/he has suitable grounds to challenge the decision; and /or (b) feels that there are unique and particular circumstances and/or

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 7 (c) admits academic misconduct but does not accept the proposed penalty

within 10 working days of the date of the meeting with the Academic Misconduct Officer, the student must submit to the Academic Misconduct Officer an evidenced based proposal for proceeding to an Academic Misconduct Panel. The Academic Misconduct Officer will forward the proposal to two identified Responsible Officers (who must be from a different School to the student). Should the submission from the student not be received within the stipulated time period by the Academic Misconduct Officer, s/he will write to the student informing him/her that the time allowed to submit a proposal to take the case to an Academic Misconduct Panel has lapsed; will therefore not be considered and the proposed penalty will be applied.

6.5 Where a proposal to proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel is received within the stipulated time period, the Responsible Officers will review the proposal and decide whether there are sufficient grounds for the case to be considered by an Academic Misconduct Panel. This decision must be made within 10 working days of receipt of the proposal by the Responsible Officer. In the event of an unreconcilable difference of opinion between the Responsible Officers the proposal shall proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel.

6.6 In reaching their decision as to whether there are sufficient grounds for the case to be considered by an Academic Misconduct Panel, the Responsible Officer will consider the full range of issues relating to the student's proposal and the details of the alleged breach. Consideration will also be given to whether:

 There is new and material evidence which the student was, for exceptional reasons, unable to present previously  The procedures were not complied with to the extent that it was questionable whether the outcome would have been different had the procedures been complied with  There is documented evidence of bias

6.7 Where the proposal does not provide sufficient grounds to allow the student’s case to proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel, the reviewing Responsible Officer will, within ten working days of receiving the proposal, complete a written report providing their decision and explanation for their decision. This will be forwarded to the Academic Misconduct Officer who will inform the student within three working days of receipt and confirm that the proposed penalty will be applied. The decision of the reviewing Responsible Officer will be final and there shall be no right of appeal.

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 8 6.8 If the proposal is deemed valid by the reviewing Responsible Officer, the matter will be considered by an Academic Misconduct Panel. The student will be informed of this, in writing, by the Academic Misconduct Officer within three working days.

6.9 This written notification will also warn the student that any case heard by an Academic Misconduct Panel may result in the awarding of a more severe penalty than that originally proposed.

7 Referrals to the Academic Misconduct Officer (where a stude nt has denied academic misconduct at a School Meeting)

7.1 The Academic Misconduct Officer will write to the student setting out the allegation and inviting him/her to a meeting, within 20 working days. The student may be accompanied by a relative, friend, colleague or preferably a Students’ Union Case Worker. The accompanying person cannot be a professional legal representative who has been employed to act on the student’s behalf nor can they act in the capacity of a legal advisor.

7.2 The student is required to respond, within a period of 20 working days, to the correspondence from the Academic Misconduct Officer. If s/he does not, s/he will be deemed to have accepted the proposed penalty (and notified of this in writing).

7.3 Where the student attends the meeting and admits to an instance (or instances) of academic misconduct, s/he will receive the proposed penalty and will be required to confirm, in writing, that s/he understands how s/he has breached these regulations, undertakes to take all necessary steps to ensure that s/he does not do so again and understands that any further instance of academic misconduct will result in a significantly more severe penalty.

7.4 Where a student attends the meeting and either:

(a) does not admit academic misconduct because s/he has suitable grounds to challenge the decision; and/or

(b) feels that there are unique and particular circumstances,

within 10 working days of the date of the meeting with the Academic Misconduct Officer, s/he must submit to the Academic Misconduct Officer an evidenced based proposal for proceeding to an Academic Misconduct Panel. The Academic Misconduct Officer will forward the proposal to an identified Responsible Officer (who must be from a different School to the student). Should the submission from the

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 9 student not be received within the stipulated time period by the Academic Misconduct Officer, s/he will write to the student informing him/her that the time allowed to submit a proposal to take the case to an Academic Misconduct Panel has lapsed; will therefore not be considered and the proposed penalty will be applied.

7.5 Where a proposal to proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel is received within the stipulated time period, the Responsible Officer will review the proposal and decide whether there are sufficient grounds for the case to be considered by an Academic Misconduct Panel. This decision must be made within 10 working days of receipt of the proposal by the Responsible Officer.

7.6 Where the proposal does not provide sufficient grounds to allow the student’s case to proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel, the reviewing Responsible Officer will, within ten working days of receiving the proposal, complete a written report, providing their decision and explanation for their decision. This will be forwarded to the Academic Misconduct Officer who will inform the student within three working days of receipt and confirm that the proposed penalty will be applied. The decision of the reviewing Responsible Officer will be final and there shall be no right of appeal.

7.7 If the proposal is deemed valid by the reviewing Responsible Officer, the matter will be considered by an Academic Misconduct Panel. The student will be informed of this, in writing, by the Academic Misconduct Officer within five working days.

8 Academic Misconduct Panels

8.1 Academic Misconduct Panels shall be convened on a regular basis by the Academic Misconduct Officer on behalf of the Academic Board, to investigate the facts of a case and/or to determine the appropriate penalty.

8.2 The constitution of the Academic Misconduct Panel shall be:

 three members of our University's academic staff, at least one of whom should be a Senior Lecturer or above, with appropriate expertise of academic misconduct procedures, who will act as the Chair  a student representative, nominated by the Students' Union.

8.3 Where possible we will seek to ensure that the composition of the panel reflects the character of our institution.

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 10 8.4 Proceedings of an Academic Misconduct Panel shall be as follows:

(a) The Academic Misconduct Panel shall, as far as is practicable, be constituted of persons who have no knowledge of the student concerned.

(b) All relevant documentation and written submissions, including statements from witnesses unable to attend the Panel, such as examination invigilators, to be considered by Academic Misconduct Panels must be sent to the Academic Misconduct Officer 10 working days prior to the Panel date.

(c) All relevant records of a School Meeting shall be made available to the Academic Misconduct Panel, together with all relevant correspondence from the Academic Misconduct Officer.

(d) Normally, at least five working days prior to the Panel date the Servicing Officer will circulate the case papers to: members of the Academic Misconduct Panel; the student; the relevant Responsible Officer and any other colleague(s) from the relevant School who will present the case at the Academic Misconduct Panel.

(e) The student shall have the right to be accompanied by a relative, friend, colleague or preferably, a Students’ Union Case Worker. The accompanying person cannot be a professional legal representative who has been employed to act on the student’s behalf nor can they act in the capacity of a legal advisor.

(f) At least five working days prior to the Panel, the student must inform the Academic Misconduct Officer of any person accompanying them. The Academic Misconduct Officer will ensure that the case papers are circulated to him/her. If details of the accompanying person are not provided at least five working days prior to the Panel date, the Panel can reserve the right to refuse admission to the accompanying person. If the accompanying person’s behaviour within the Panel is deemed inappropriate, the Chair has the right to demand that s/he be removed from the Panel.

(g) The student shall have the right to call and to question witnesses.

(h) The Academic Misconduct Panel shall have the right to call and to question witnesses in the presence of the student (and relative, friend, colleague or a Students’ Union Case Worker if present). University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 11 (i) If the student does not appear at the date and time scheduled for the hearing, the Academic Misconduct Panel shall consider whether any reasons provided for non-attendance are valid, and:

 if no reasons are provided, or if they are judged invalid, proceed in the respondent's absence, regarding him or her (subject to any written account) as having admitted none of the allegations.  if members so judge, adjourn proceedings to a later meeting;

(j) If the Responsible Officer delegated to present the case on behalf of the School does not appear at the date and time scheduled for the Academic Misconduct Panel, the case will be permanently withdrawn, with no grounds for appeal by the School.

(k) At the discretion of the Chair, and usually only to accommodate distance learning students, an Academic Misconduct Panel may take place via a video or telephone conference.

(l) The Academic Misconduct Panel shall consider its findings in private and shall submit a written report to the Responsible Officer and the student. The outcome is presented to the relevant Subject Area Progression Board, as soon as is practicable following its deliberations.

(m) In determining whether the allegation(s) has/have been proven, the Panel must be satisfied that the allegation(s) is/are proven on the balance of probability.

(n) In reaching its conclusions on whether the allegation(s) has/have been proven, the Academic Misconduct Panel shall consider fully any relevant input from staff familiar with the student's circumstances and/or previous performance.

(o) Should an Academic Misconduct Panel be unable to reach an agreed decision, the Chair will determine a final decision.

(p) If the student is found to have breached these regulations, the Panel will impose a penalty in accordance with the tariff at section 10 below and a record of the outcome shall be kept on the student's file.

(q) An annual report on such cases will be made to the Academic Board or other University body authorised by it to monitor

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 12 consistency across the institution. Such reports will identify any matters of principle or general significance.

9 Criteria for determining the penalty for academic misconduct

9.1 In determining the sanction to be imposed, an Academic Misconduct Panel will assess the seriousness of the academic misconduct using the following criteria

9.2 Pre-meditation

Deliberate or intended misconduct will normally be considered more serious than that which has arisen inadvertently.

9.3 Previous history

A previous history of academic misconduct will normally be considered as being more serious than a first instance of academic misconduct.

9.4 Theft, falsification and work purchased from third parties

Academic misconduct involving theft (e.g. stealing a piece of coursework from another student), the falsification of another person's work or ideas, the purchase of work from a third party, or the use of a “cheat site”, will normally be considered more serious than that involving the authorised, but unattributed, use of another person's work.

9.5 Effect on other students

Academic misconduct that has an adverse effect on the standing or well being of a fellow student will normally be considered to be more serious than an act that only affects the offender.

9.6 Miscellaneous

Any other relevant factors pertinent to individual cases may be taken into account in penalty.

10 Tariff of penalties for academic misconduct

10.1 The following tariff shows the range of penalties.

10.2 In determining the penalty, the Academic Misconduct Panel shall have due regard of the need to:

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 13 (a) maintain the academic standards of the University (b) deal equitably with the students of the University and (c) apply proportional penalties in all circumstance.

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 14 Academic Misconduct Penalties – Undergraduate Programmes

Level A: First instance of non serious offence

A student who plagiarises or colludes for the first time will be issued with a Level A Penalty if there is a prima facie case, provided that there is no evidence that s/he has behaved in a pre-meditated dishonest way. The work concerned will be awarded a mark of 0. Where a Level A Penalty is issued at the first assessment opportunity, the relevant component at reassessment will be capped at the minimum pass mark. Where a Level A Penalty is issued at a reassessment opportunity, the Subject Area Progression Board will determine the appropriate consequence. A Level A Penalty is a penalty but is neither recorded on a transcript, nor reported to a professional body.

Level B: First instance of serious academic misconduct and/or any academic misconduct following a Level A Penalty

Penalty Outcome Indicative Misconduct

A student will fail the module with a mark of 0. Attempting to copy from another student in an examination. Where a level B penalty is issued at the first assessment point, the student will be required to Importing prohibited materials of any type into an retake the entire module at the next assessment examination room point. All components of the relevant module will Any instance of academic misconduct that has be capped at the minimum pass mark. been preceded by a Level A penalty Where a level B penalty is issued at the reassessment point, the Subject Area Progression Board will determine the appropriate consequence. Level C: First instance of serious academic misconduct involving pre-meditated dishonesty and/or any academic misconduct following a Level B Penalty)

The student will be suspended from his/her studies Any instance of academic misconduct that has for the following academic year been preceded by a Level B penalty. The student will fail the module and a mark of 0 will A serious first instance: be recorded for all components of assessment in of plagiarism or collusion, where the student has the relevant module. acted in a grossly dishonest way (this might apply Where a level C penalty is issued at the first to academic misconduct involving theft, falsification, assessment point the suspension will be applied or purchase, or having a directly adverse effect on from Term 1 of the following academic year. other students ); or Where a level C penalty is issued at the involving impersonation, bribery, reference to reassessment point, the Subject Area Progression prohibited materials in an examination and/or the Board will determine the appropriate consequence attempted intimidation of an invigilator

Level D: Any academic misconduct

Expulsion Any instance of academic misconduct that has University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 15 been preceded by a Level C penalty, or any instance of academic misconduct deemed bto merit this penalty.

Additional Key Academic Misconduct Penalty Issues - Undergraduate Programmes A student whose mobile telephone or electronic device sounds during an examination will be issued with a Level A Penalty if there is a prima facie case, provided that there is no evidence that s/he has behaved in a pre-meditated dishonest way. The work concerned will be awarded a mark of 0. The same level of penalty will be issued regardless of the number of occasions this same offence is repeated. Where a Subject Area Progression Board permits a student to resit a year of study, previous academic misconduct penalties will be carried forward. The following will apply:

 Where a Level A Penalty has been applied – the equivalent repeated component will be capped.  Where a Level B Penalty has been applied – the equivalent repeated module will be capped.  Where a Level C Penalty has been applied – all modules will be capped.

Where a student takes any module in place of a module failed as a result of academic misconduct, the mark for that module will be capped at the minimum pass mark.

Where a student has previously received a Level A Penalty for an instance of academic misconduct of a type significantly different from that currently alleged, the decision as to whether it remains appropriate to impose the next most severe penalty in the tariff, should be considered.

Where a student is found to have breached Academic Misconduct Regulations more than once over a short period of time, the level of penalty to be imposed should be fully considered in light of the circumstances, types of misconduct and timings of misconduct.

Academic Misconduct Penalties will not be carried forward where there is a change in qualification level from undergraduate to postgraduate study. For the purposes of these regulations, Integrated Masters Programmes will be treated as a single qualification level.

Any module with a recorded breach cannot be pass compensated

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 16 Academic Misconduct Penalties – Postgraduate Programmes

Level A: First instance of non serious offence

A student who plagiarises or colludes for the first time will be issued with a Level A Penalty if there is a prima facie case, provided that there is no evidence that s/he has behaved in a pre-meditated dishonest way. The work concerned will be awarded a mark of 0. Where a Level A Penalty is issued at the first assessment opportunity, the relevant component at reassessment will be capped at the minimum pass mark. Where a Level A Penalty is issued at a reassessment opportunity, the Subject Area Progression Board will determine the appropriate consequence. NB: A Level A Penalty is a penalty but is neither recorded on a transcript, nor reported to a professional body.

Level B: First instance of serious academic misconduct and/or any academic misconduct following a Level A Penalty

The student will fail the module and a mark of 0 will Attempting to copy from another student in an be recorded for all components of assessment in it examination. and: Importing prohibited materials of any type into an  if the misconduct occurs at First or examination room Second opportunity in the module - Any instance of academic misconduct that has retrieve all components of assessment at been preceded by a level A penalty the next assessment with attendance. Cap the repeat assessment of the module at the minimum pass mark; or  if the misconduct occurs at Third or Fourth opportunity in the module - do not allow further registration, assessment or reassessment on the module.

Level C: First instance of serious academic misconduct involving pre-meditated dishonesty and/or any academic misconduct following a Level B Penalty)

The student will be suspended from his/her studies Any instance of academic misconduct that has for one semester been preceded by a Level B penalty. The student will fail the module and a mark of 0 will A serious first instance: be recorded for all components of assessment in it of plagiarism or collusion, where the student has and: acted in a grossly dishonest way (this might apply  if the misconduct occurs at First or to academic misconduct involving theft, falsification, Second opportunity in the module - or purchase, or having a directly adverse effect on retrieve all components of assessment at other students ); or the next assessment (following the University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 17 student’s return from suspension) with involving impersonation, bribery, reference to attendance. Cap the repeat assessment of prohibited materials in an examination and/or the the module at the minimum pass mark; or attempted intimidation of an invigilator if the misconduct occurs at Third or Fourth opportunity in the module - do not allow further registration, assessment or reassessment on the module.

Level D: Any academic misconduct following a Level C Penalty

Expulsion Any instance of academic misconduct that has been preceded by a Level C penalty, or any instance of academic misconduct deemed to merit this penalty.

Additional Key Academic Misconduct Penalty Issues - Postgraduate Programmes A student whose mobile telephone or electronic device sounds during an examination will be issued with a Level A Penalty if there is a prima facie case, provided that there is no evidence that s/he has behaved in a pre-meditated dishonest way. The work concerned will be awarded a mark of 0. The same level of penalty will be issued regardless of the number of occasions this same offence is repeated. Where a student takes any module in place of a module failed as a result of academic misconduct, the mark for that module will be capped at the minimum pass mark.

Where a student has previously received a Level A Penalty for an instance of academic misconduct of a type significantly different from that currently alleged, the decision as to whether it remains appropriate to impose the next most severe penalty in the tariff, should be considered.

Where a student is found to have breached Academic Misconduct Regulations more than once over a short period of time, the level of penalty to be imposed should be fully considered in light of the circumstances, types of misconduct and timings of misconduct.

Academic Misconduct Penalties will not be carried forward where there is a change in qualification level from undergraduate to postgraduate study. For the purposes of these regulations, Integrated Masters Programmes will be treated as a single qualification level.

Any module with a recorded breach cannot be pass compensated

10.3 Where a Panel decides that a student should be expelled, a full report on the matter should be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor by the Academic Misconduct Officer, with the recommendation that any student concerned be expelled under the general disciplinary powers of the Vice-Chancellor.

11 Appeal against the decision of an Academic Misconduct Pan el

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 18 11.1 An appeal is not a re-hearing of the case previously presented under the relevant procedure. It is solely a review of that process, or procedure, which is intended to establish whether the conduct of that process under the relevant procedure, prior to the appeal, was fair and had been conducted properly, and that the decisions made were not the result of perversity of judgement in the face of the evidence presented.

11.2 There shall be no appeal against the decision of the Academic Misconduct Panel except on the grounds that:

 There is new and material evidence which the student was for exceptional reasons unable to present to the Academic Misconduct Panel. This may include evidence for extenuation.

 The procedures were not complied with to the extent that it was questionable whether the outcome would have been different had the procedures been complied with.

 There is documented evidence of bias on the part of the members of the Academic Misconduct Panel or its Clerk.

 The penalty imposed exceeded that available to the Academic Misconduct Panel.

11.3 No new evidence may be given at an appeal hearing, except where it can be shown that there were justifiable reasons why it had not been presented previously and, if it had been presented previously, would have been likely to have been material to the decision(s) made. Such justification is to be provided as part of the application to appeal.

11.3 Any student wishing to appeal must submit to the Head of Governance and Legal Services, a written notice stating the ground(s) of appeal within 20 working days of the date upon which s/he was informed of the Academic Misconduct Panel’s decision.

11.4 There shall be an Appeal Panel which shall be convened by the Head of Governance and Legal Services and shall be constituted of:

(a) two academic staff members one of whom will be a Dean, or Associate Dean, of School; (b) the President of the Students’ Union or his/her nominee.

11.5 The Chair of the Appeal Panel shall normally be the Dean, or Associate Dean, of School.

11.6 Where possible our University shall seek to ensure that the composition of the panel reflects the character of the institution.

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 19 11.7 The panel shall, where practicable, be composed of members who are unlikely to know personally any student whose case it may consider.

11.8 The Panel shall appoint a Secretary, who will be responsible for keeping a written record of the decisions made.

12 Powers of the Appeal Panel

12.1 The Appeal Panel shall have power to:

(a) adjourn the hearing to a future date.; (b) confirm the penalty imposed; (c) moderate the penalty imposed to a lesser penalty as stipulated in 6.5 above. The Committee may not impose a greater penalty; (d) uphold the appeal and overturn a decision to impose a penalty.

13 Procedure to be followed by the Appeal Panel

13.1 The Secretary will invite both parties to attend the appeal hearing, informing them of the date, time and venue. The two parties will be the appellant and the Chair of the Academic Misconduct Panel that is the subject of the appeal. There shall be no other persons invited to attend the hearing, save that the appellant may be accompanied (see regulation 13.2 below).

13.2 The appellant will be entitled to be accompanied to the hearing by a relative, friend, colleague or a Students’ Union Case Worker. The accompanying person cannot be a professional legal representative who has been employed to act on the student’s behalf nor can they act in the capacity of a legal advisor. The person accompanying the appellant may assist with the appeal and present evidence on the appellant's behalf, but may not answer questions on their behalf.

13.3 Normally at least ten working days prior to the hearing, the Secretary will circulate the case papers to the members of the Appeal Panel, the appellant and the Chair of the relevant Academic Panel.

13.4 The Chair of the relevant Academic Misconduct Panel shall be invited to submit a response to the appeal, which should be received at least five working days prior to the hearing. The Secretary shall circulate the response to the members of the Appeal Panel and the appellant (and friend, relative or representative) at least three working days prior to the hearing.

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 20 13.5 In the event of late papers being received by the Secretary, or previously uncirculated papers being presented by either side at the hearing, the Chair of the Appeal Panel shall decide whether they should be admitted, taking into account that, should such admission be permitted, it should not be to the disadvantage of either party.

13.6 The appellant may elect not to appear in person before the Appeal Panel. In such cases the Appeal Panel will decide the appeal on the basis of written submissions. If, however, a written submission is not clear, the Panel will arrive at a decision on the basis of the evidence available to it.

13.7 Should the appellant fail to appear at the hearing without reasonable cause or explanation, the Appeal Panel will hear the appeal in absentia and arrive at a decision on the basis of the evidence available to it.

13.8 The Appeal Panel, having regard to all of the written and oral evidence provided, will decide whether the decision being appealed was fair, reasonable and proportionate.

13.9 In the event of the Appeal Panel not being able to reach a unanimous decision, there will be a majority conclusion.

13.10 The decision of the Panel will be final and there shall be no further right of appeal. Within ten working days of the appeal hearing the Panel shall issue to the appellant and the Chair of the relevant Academic Misconduct Panel, a Completion of Procedures letter which will set out its reasons for either dismissing, or upholding the appeal. No further correspondence shall be entered into.

14 Independent Review

14.1 If a student has exhausted the appeal procedure set out in sections 11 to 13 above and is not satisfied with the outcome, he/she may request that the case is reviewed by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator which is a body independent of our University.

14.2 The grounds and eligibility for review shall be determined by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

14.3 The findings of any case considered by the Independent Adjudicator shall be considered directly by the Academic Board. The Academic Board shall take the recommendations of the Independent Adjudicator into account in reaching a final decision about any action that should be taken in response to the Appeal.

14.4 The decision of the Academic Board is final and there shall be no further appeal against this decision. University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 21 Appendix I

Procedures to be followed in the event of suspected academic misconduct at or prior to an oral examination for a postgraduate research award

All references to: the Head of Governance and Legal Services’; the ‘Dean of the Graduate School’; the ‘Academic Misconduct Officer’; ‘or the ‘School Responsible Officer’ in these procedures should be taken respectively to mean ‘Head of Governance and Legal Services or designate’; ‘Dean of the Graduate School or designate’; ‘Academic Misconduct Officer or designate’ or ‘School Responsible Officer or designate’.

1 Any work (including any document for consideration for an annual review and/or transfer of status between MPhil and PhD status in either direction, a thesis, artefacts, musical scores, recording of performances etc.) submitted by a postgraduate research student for formal assessment on the research part of his/her programme is referred to below as a submittal.

2 Suspected academic misconduct prior to an oral examination

2.1 Where, prior to an oral examination for a postgraduate research award, an examiner suspects a student of making a submittal co ntaining academic misconduct, s/he will inform the Chair of Exa miners and the Dean of the Graduate School within 5 working d ays of reaching this conclusion. Within a further 5 working days, the Chair of Examiners will supply the Dean of the Graduate Sch ool, with a report on the suspected academic misconduct.

2.2 The Dean of the Graduate School will, within 5 working days of r eceipt, determine whether it appears that academic misconduct has occurred.

2.3 Where the Dean of the Graduate School determines that academic misconduct has not occurred, the Chair of Examiners will be informed.

2.4 Where the Dean of the Graduate School determines that it appe ars that academic misconduct has occurred, the oral examinatio n will be postponed, s/he will inform the Academic Misconduct Officer and the procedures detailed in Section 4 below will apply.

2.5 In the case of professional doctorates, the Dean of the Graduate School will establish if the programme has professional body rec ognition and where this is the case, will inform the Programme L eader that action is being initiated under the Academic Miscond uct Regulations. University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 22 3 Suspected academic misconduct at oral examination

3.1 Where an examiner suspects at the oral examination that the su bmittal is not the work of the student under examination, s/he wil l bring this to the attention of the Chair of Examiners at the concl usion of the examination and after the student and any supervis ors have left the room.

3.2 The Chair of Examiners will ensure that the examining team pre pare the normal report on the submittal and viva which will be pr ovided to the student in accordance with usual procedure.

3.3 The Chair of Examiners will prepare a report on the suspected a cademic misconduct on behalf of the examining team for the Dean of the Graduate School within 10 working days of the oral examination.

3.4 The Dean of the Graduate School will, within 5 working days of r eceipt, determine whether or not it appears that academic misco nduct has occurred

3.5 Where the Dean of the Graduate School determines that academic misconduct has not occurred, the Chair of Examiners will be informed.

3.6 Where the Dean of the Graduate School determines that it appe ars that academic misconduct has occurred, s/he will inform the Academic Misconduct Officer and procedures detailed in Section 4 below will apply.

3.7 In the case of professional doctorates, the Dean of the Graduate School will establish if the programme has professional body rec ognition and where this is the case, will inform the Programme L eader that action is being initiated under the Academic Miscond uct Regulations.

4 Procedure to be followed where suspected academic misconduct has been referred to the Academic Misconduct Officer

4.1 The Academic Misconduct Officer will, within 10 working days of receipt of a report from the Dean of the Graduate School, arrange a meeting with the student and the Dean of the Graduate School. The student will be invited to the meeting, in writing, and will be sent a copy of the report. The student will be advised that the purpose of the meeting is to put the suspected academic misconduct to the student and to allow the student to respond. The student will be advised that s/he has the right to be accompanied at the meeting by a relative, friend, colleague University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 23 or a Students’ Union Case Worker. The accompanying person cannot be a professional legal representative who has been employed to act on the student’s behalf nor can they act in the capacity of a legal advisor.

4.2 Should the student fail to appear at the hearing without reasonable cause or explanation, the meeting will take place in the student’s absence and the Dean of the Graduate School will arrive at a decision on the basis of the evidence available to her/him.

4.3 At the meeting, the student will be reminded of our Academic Misconduct Regulations (including the tariff of penalties), and shown how s/he has breached them. The Dean of the Graduate School will present the evidence and ask the student to respond.

4.4 Following the student’s response s/he will be asked to leave the room, while the Dean of the Graduate School determines whether it appears that academic misconduct has occurred. If it is concluded that this is probable, the Dean of the Graduate School will:

either:

a) Propose one of the following penalties:

(i) That the submittal be re-submitted within six months of the date of the meeting with the inappropriate material removed and appropriate editing undertaken. The student will not be allowed to add additional material to the submittal but will be supplied with the normal feedback from the examiners on identified deficiencies with the submittal. This penalty may also include the consequence that the re-submittal is no longer sufficiently substantial for the original degree and can only be submitted for a lesser degree.

(ii) Fail the submittal. In this case the student will have come to the end of their studies and will be withdrawn. S/he will be given the highest award possible from any modular credit s/he has accumulated on his/her programme.

b) Decide that the matter be referred to an Academic Misconduct Panel, with the suggestion that the Panel recommend to the Vice-Chancellor that the student be University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 24 expelled under the Vice-Chancellor’s general disciplinary powers.

4.4 The student will then be invited to return to the meeting and will be informed of the conclusions referred to above.

4.5 Where the student accepts a penalty proposed in accordance with the above, s/he will do so in writing (by signing the School Meeting pro forma). The penalty will be imposed and the student will be advised that any further instance of academic misconduct may lead to her/his expulsion.

4.6 Where the student rejects the proposed penalty, within 10 working days of the date of the meeting, the student must submit to the Academic Misconduct Officer an evidenced based proposal for proceeding to an Academic Misconduct Panel. The Academic Misconduct Officer will forward the proposal to an identified Responsible Officer (who must be from a different School to the student). Should the submission from the student not be received within the stipulated time period by the Academic Misconduct Officer, s/he will write to the student informing him/her that the time allowed to submit a proposal to take the case to an Academic Misconduct Panel has lapsed; will therefore not be considered and the proposed penalty will be applied.

4.7 Where a proposal to proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel is received within the stipulated time period, the Responsible Officer will review the proposal and decide whether there are sufficient grounds for the case to be considered by an Academic Misconduct Panel. This decision must be made within 10 working days of receipt of the proposal by the Responsible Officer.

4.8 Where the proposal does not provide sufficient grounds to allow the student’s case to proceed to an Academic Misconduct Panel, the reviewing Responsible Officer will, within ten working days of receiving the proposal, complete a written report, providing their decision and explanation for their decision. This will be forwarded to the Academic Misconduct Officer who will inform the student within three working days of receipt and confirm that the proposed penalty will be applied. The decision of the reviewing Responsible Officer will be final and there shall be no right of appeal.

4.9 If the proposal is deemed valid by the reviewing Responsible Officer, the matter will be considered by an Academic Misconduct Panel. The student will be informed of this, in

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 25 writing, by the Academic Misconduct Officer within three working days.

4.11 Where the Director of the Graduate School concludes that the student has not committed academic misconduct, the student will be informed when s/he returns to the meeting that the suspicion(s) have not been substantiated and no further action will be taken.

University of East London Manual of General Regulations Sep 2014 26